World Families Forums - U106 'the wander years'

ARCHIVAL COPY

WorldFamilies has changed our Forum Operating system and migrated the postings from the prior system. We hope that you’ll find this new system easier to use and we expect it to manage spammers much better. If you can’t find an old posting, please check our Legacy Forum to see if you can see the old posting there.

The only man I know with an exact haplotype match to Eulau has English ancestry. The idea that modern East Germans descend directly from Corded Ware on the very spot they now live is naive. A whole lot of movement has gone on in between.

I2-M423 might have a younger spread than R1a1 though, perhaps at a time when the tribes of Central Europe were populous enough to not be intimidated by newcomers who might consider waging a war. Alternatively, I2-M423 spread could be even younger than the Roman empire. It stops suddenly at Czechs/Slovaks where as haplogroups usually seen as 'neolithic' such as G2a3b1 and E-V13 are evenly distributed across Central Europe at low levels.

All the modern evidence points to Germany and France being major staging grounds for R1b expansion. I suspect that P312*/U152 were key in Gaulish and Central European Celtic expansions, and U106+ being a major player in Germanic expansion. Who wer the original PIE speakers is immaterial as far as I am concerned. The evidence points to these haplogroups being involved in the spread of and likely origin of the languages - even if they inherited the proto-language from someone else.

... Who wer the original PIE speakers is immaterial as far as I am concerned. The evidence points to these haplogroups being involved in the spread of and likely origin of the languages - even if they inherited the proto-language from someone else.

It is true that the languages don't equal the genes, but I don't think we want to ignore linguistic analysis and hypothesis. They are just additional puzzle pieces that do fit, we just don't know how. A very good book related to this is "Genes, Peoples, and Languages" by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza.

I don't necessarily contend that U106 or a pre-U106 R1b lineage was one of the original PIE speakers, but U106 appears to be a part of the original Germanic speaking groups. If so, that is a clue.

U106 is a good candidate for carrying pre-Germanic IE dialects. The only other choices that I can see are I1 and R1a1. I1 doesn't appear to have come from any hypothesized PIE homeland so it leaves R1a1, U106 or both as pre-Germanic IE dialect carriers. We know R1a1 is heavily associated with Satem IE languages like the Balto-Slavic languages. Germanic is Centum based so that doesn't help us decide that R1a1 was the pre-Germanic dialect carrier so U106 is still a very viable alternative. If U106 wasn't speaking pre-Germanic dialects of IE early on, what was U106 speaking? The only other alternative that seems likely to me is a pre-Italo-Celtic dialect, which means U106 converted to Germanic speaking at some later stage, like the Jastorf Culture. From my perspective, it is simpler to accept U106 as the leading candidate for Centum based pre-Germanic dialects of IE.

Either way, the primary PIE homeland theories place it in Anatolia or the Pontic Steppes... both well east of the Germanic speaking heartland. Also, of course, the Globular Amphora culture must be considered as a leading candidate for pre-Germanic speaking people, at least according to folks like David Anthony.

... All the modern evidence points to Germany and France being major staging grounds for R1b expansion....

What is the evidence that U106 originated in Germany, if that is what you are saying? I agree Germany was a staging ground for expansion into Benelux and England, and possibly even a staging ground for expansion into the Scandinavian Peninsula. I don't see what would make us think U106 originated in Germany or France though. Do you think U106 originated in Austria/Switzerland?

Well, if we are in controversial territory, we might as well call upon Anatole Klyosov. I don't necessarily agree with his interpretations or conclusions but he has a good grasp for the data and everything I see is that his time calculations are close to methodologies like those of Nordtvedt's.

Quote from: Anatole K

The ancestral R1a1 haplotypes for the Norwegian and Swedish groups are almost the same, and both are similar to the German 25-marker ancestral haplotype....the first bearers of the R1a1 haplogroup in Europe lived in the Balkans (Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia) between 10 and 13 thousand ybp....The ancestral haplotypes for the Polish, Czech, and Slovak groups are very similar to each other

I'm not up on the latest R1a1 SNPs. Do they support Klyosov's analysis above?

Here are some of his conclusions.

Quote from: Anatole K

R1a1 haplotypes in the Eastern European Plain and across Europe and Eurasia in general has shown that R1a1 haplogroup appeared in Europe between 12 and 10 thousand years before present ... and after about 6,000 ybp had populated Europe, though, probably, with low density. After 4,500 ybp R1a1 practically disappeared from Europe, incidentally, along with I1.

Does the latest SNP testing bear out that the Norwegian/Swedish and German haplotypes are closely related and the Slavic are different? That might help us if we can trace those two groups separately in how they might have related to U106.

I'm not up on the latest R1a1 SNPs. Do they support Klyosov's analysis above?

Even the data he was using didn't support his analysis that the "first bearers of the R1a1 haplogroup in Europe lived in the Balkans... between 10 and 13 thousand ybp." I asked Ken to check that date for me when it was first released, as everyone seemed to be rolling their eyes in disbelief. Ken found that the calculation was wildly wrong even using the same sources, and he suspected that there were further problems.

I'm not up on the latest R1a1 SNPs. Do they support Klyosov's analysis above?

Even the data he was using didn't support his analysis that the "first bearers of the R1a1 haplogroup in Europe lived in the Balkans... between 10 and 13 thousand ybp." I asked Ken to check that date for me when it was first released, as everyone seemed to be rolling their eyes in disbelief. Ken found that the calculation was wildly wrong even using the same sources, and he suspected that there were further problems.

Cool. I like the way they created that tree. Do you think the R1a project web site timeline on the tree looks correct? or is as good as any?

It looks like they have R1a-L664, R1a-Z282* and R1a-Z284 as the ones to possibly associated with pre-Germanic speakers and possibly U106. It is clear that R1a-L664, R1a-Z282* and R1a-Z284 had to get to NW Europe from far to the east. Do you think they were in western Corded Ware or late Neolithic movements of some type to get them deep up into NW Europe?

The only man I know with an exact haplotype match to Eulau has English ancestry. The idea that modern East Germans descend directly from Corded Ware on the very spot they now live is naive. A whole lot of movement has gone on in between.

In absolute terms, you are right, it is naive. But it is also naive to think that no modern East Germans descend from CW. I wouldn't be surprised if it was something in the neighborhood of 25%.

What is the evidence that U106 originated in Germany, if that is what you are saying? I agree Germany was a staging ground for expansion into Benelux and England, and possibly even a staging ground for expansion into the Scandinavian Peninsula. I don't see what would make us think U106 originated in Germany or France though. Do you think U106 originated in Austria/Switzerland?

I did indicate in a previous post France/W.Germany, but I didn't mention it here. I think suggesting somewhere like Greece or Ireland would be less intuitive no? I know the original founder could have lived anywhere on Earth, but I think there is a degree of reason which should be considered, especially when we should be considering the regions where European populations would have begun budding with the introduction of agriculture.

Some oddities about R1a*

- AFAIK the only members are NW Europeans (except a German surname and 1 Italian). Oddly enough, one lowland Scot clan seems to have members in R1a* and R-V88 - figure that one out.

-There is one misc member of this R1a* western branch in the Greek project. However no other information has been provided if they are in fact Greek.

Do you think the R1a project web site timeline on the tree looks correct?

I know nothing about the methodology L. L-L. is using. (It is explained top left of the tree). The main split that he gives between Asia and Europe at c. 3500 BC fits the date for the break-up of PIE deduced from linguistics and lexico-cultural dating. (Though there wasn't just one break-up. There were a series.) M458 at 2500 BC would fit OK with it arising in the Middle Dnieper after the departure c. 3200 BC of the group who went on to speak Baltic. The latter fit into Z280 on the tree. The date for M458 might seem early, but we need to allow a lot of time for it to build up among the group who went on to develop Proto-Slavic, because it spread far and wide with them.

I am suspicious of the higher variance suggesting an eastern Baltic origin for U106.

Quoating from "Germanic peoples", a Wiki article: "A deteriorating climate in Scandinavia around 850 BCE to 760 BCE and a later and more rapid one around 650 BCE might have triggered migrations to the coast of Eastern Germany and further toward the Vistula." Such an outside addition to the population already there would increase the variance. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples]

Another Wiki article "Pre-Roman Iron Age of Northern Europe" compliments the above: ". . . a deteriorating climate, which caused a dramatic change in the flora and fauna. In Scandinavia, this period is often called the Findless Age due to the lack of finds. While the finds from Scandinavia are consistent with a loss of population, the southern part of the culture, the Jastorf culture, was in expansion southwards. It consequently appears that the climate change played an important role in the southward expansion of the tribes, considered Germanic, into continental Europe." The statement is accompanied by a map depicting The southward expansion of the Germanic tribes 750 BC – AD 1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Roman_Iron_Age]

I don't think we can rule out a Scandinavian origin for U106. That of course doesn't explain the movements of papa L11.

I'm not up on the latest R1a1 SNPs. Do they support Klyosov's analysis above?

Even the data he was using didn't support his analysis that the "first bearers of the R1a1 haplogroup in Europe lived in the Balkans... between 10 and 13 thousand ybp." I asked Ken to check that date for me when it was first released, as everyone seemed to be rolling their eyes in disbelief. Ken found that the calculation was wildly wrong even using the same sources, and he suspected that there were further problems.

To get the paper click on PDF top right and wait patiently. It may be a slow download on your computer. I have broadband and it took a couple of seconds.

How would plague make people related who were not related before? The paper uses Identity by Descent i.e. the length of shared DNA segments. It is the same method that is used by 23andMe to calculate cousins among its customers.

I am suspicious of the higher variance suggesting an eastern Baltic origin for U106......Quoating from "Germanic peoples", a Wiki article:

Quote

"A deteriorating climate in Scandinavia around 850 BCE to 760 BCE and a later and more rapid one around 650 BCE might have triggered migrations to the coast of Eastern Germany and further toward the Vistula." Such an outside addition to the population already there would increase the variance. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples]

....I don't think we can rule out a Scandinavian origin for U106. That of course doesn't explain the movements of papa L11.

I don't think we can totally rule out too much, but regardless of climate change, Germanic language development, etc., we have to link genetic information in somehow if we are going to make inferences about U106's trail of expansion(s).

Even if the Baltic states are not the origin for U106, which I don't think they are, Germany has lower diversity and the Scandinavia has lower diversity yet. That is one strike against a Scandinavian origin for U106.

Papa L11's cousin locations are important, but it doesn't look like he originated in Scandinavia so that is strike two against a Scandinavian origin for U106. The locations of g and gg-grandpa related 2nd/3rd cousins don't look Scandinavian either. This is strike two.

Some hypotheses show pre-Germanic languages coming out of Scandinavia and since U106 is currently thick among Germanic languages lets call that ball one.

R1b ancient DNA has been found in the Lichenstein cave with Urnfield materials. This was before the origin of the Germanic languages in an area south of Scandinavia. This R1b was not SNP tested but if you had to bet P312 vs U106 you'd probably bet U106 based on the STRs. I don't know if this strike three. Probably not, but the odds of Scandinavia being the origin for U106 aren't all that good from what we know.

To get the paper click on PDF top right and wait patiently. It may be a slow download on your computer. I have broadband and it took a couple of seconds.

How would plague make people related who were not related before? The paper uses Identity by Descent i.e. the length of shared DNA segments. It is the same method that is used by 23andMe to calculate cousins among its customers.

I would expect a drastic drop in population would homogenize the adjacent village populations to some degree.

....I don't think we can totally rule out too much, but regardless of climate change, Germanic language development, etc., we have to link genetic information in somehow if we are going to make inferences about U106's trail of expansion(s).

Even if the Baltic states are not the origin for U106, which I don't think they are, Germany has lower diversity and the Scandinavia has lower diversity yet. That is one strike against a Scandinavian origin for U106.

Papa L11's cousin locations are important, but it doesn't look like he originated in Scandinavia so that is strike two against a Scandinavian origin for U106. The locations of g and gg-grandpa related 2nd/3rd cousins don't look Scandinavian either. This is strike two.

Some hypotheses show pre-Germanic languages coming out of Scandinavia and since U106 is currently thick among Germanic languages lets call that ball one.

R1b ancient DNA has been found in the Lichenstein cave with Urnfield materials. This was before the origin of the Germanic languages in an area south of Scandinavia. This R1b was not SNP tested but if you had to bet P312 vs U106 you'd probably bet U106 based on the STRs. I don't know if this strike three. Probably not, but the odds of Scandinavia being the origin for U106 aren't all that good from what we know.

Okay, looks like we have ball two. Jost's analysis of the Busby data set shows Norway with the highest variance.

....S21(U106) has about the same generation age as S116 but checking out the population Variance (throw out BAS), has Norway in the lead as the most variance....

Important for all to note that Norway has the highest U106 variance in the Busby study and that the data is new to that study and was not part of the Myres 2011 dataset.

Mark J or Richard R, can you comment on why the Busby data and Myres data have different results?

Are different markers used, etc.? How large are the samples?

For Norway, do you mean modern Norway? If so, that would be a twist as it has always looked like L21 was more common in Norway while U106 did better on the southern tip of Sweden... but if diversity is greatest there, it just is.

Did the Old Norway Project ever give us haplotypes?

We've talked about this on the STR Wars/diversity thread ad nauseum so I don't want to go too deep on general STR variance here, but I've never had consistent observations of relative haplogroup STR variance for R1b at low numbers of STRs. It has always seemed to start to even out at 25 markers and above. An actuarian on the M222 forum ran some simulations and said you really should have 50 markers at a minimum. Still, diversity is more important than frequency for determining an ancient trail. The only question, is what data sets/measurements are most reliable and when is the best data we have more helpful than distracting. I am in the camp that thinks more data is always good, but all evidence should be ranked with precision and accuracy characteristics.

Of course, if U106 actually does have an ancient trail along the Atlantic that is significant for two reasons:1) a tie into the Bell Beaker expansion and a Western European origination for the L11* P312/U106 MRCA origination2) some happy U106 guys from Ireland

This is probably a real R1*, and doesn't mean anything about the expansion of R1a* or R1b*, being so ancient and diffused all over Eurasia and also Africa.

I have written a lot about R1a* in Western Europe, and probably the Klyosov's theory that put it in the Balkans owes something to it. Also if the Paper of Pichler was wrong in finding R1a* in the Rhaetian Region, they were at least R1a1*, not found in that percentage elsewhere, and also this is in favour of the origin of R1a* and R1b* in the Alps.

This is probably a real R1*, and doesn't mean anything about the expansion of R1a* or R1b*, being so ancient and diffused all over Eurasia and also Africa.

I have written a lot about R1a* in Western Europe, and probably the Klyosov's theory that put it in the Balkans owes something to it. Also if the Paper of Pichler was wrong in finding R1a* in the Rhaetian Region, they were at least R1a1*, not found in that percentage elsewhere, and also this is in favour of the origin of R1a* and R1b* in the Alps.

Well no R1* has been found to date, at least none of the samples publicly available.

Of course, if U106 actually does have an ancient trail along the Atlantic that is significant for two reasons:1) a tie into the Bell Beaker expansion and a Western European origination for the L11* P312/U106 MRCA origination2) some happy U106 guys from Ireland

FWIW (of no Beaker impact): There was so much depopulation of north Germany and southern Scandinavia in the 1st millenium AD. The most famous being the migration of Angles, Jutes and Saxons to Britain. And smaller events such as Charlemagne deporting 10,000 Saxons to Neustria, and killing over 4000 more for not converting from their pagan ways. I'm not positive how these would affect the statistics in north Germany, and admit they were likely not only U106, but nevertheless I'm thinking cutting off the tails of the bell curve is going to reduce diversity in the remaining population.

....I don't think we can totally rule out too much, but regardless of climate change, Germanic language development, etc., we have to link genetic information in somehow if we are going to make inferences about U106's trail of expansion(s).

Even if the Baltic states are not the origin for U106, which I don't think they are, Germany has lower diversity and the Scandinavia has lower diversity yet. That is one strike against a Scandinavian origin for U106.

Papa L11's cousin locations are important, but it doesn't look like he originated in Scandinavia so that is strike two against a Scandinavian origin for U106. The locations of g and gg-grandpa related 2nd/3rd cousins don't look Scandinavian either. This is strike two.

Some hypotheses show pre-Germanic languages coming out of Scandinavia and since U106 is currently thick among Germanic languages lets call that ball one.

R1b ancient DNA has been found in the Lichenstein cave with Urnfield materials. This was before the origin of the Germanic languages in an area south of Scandinavia. This R1b was not SNP tested but if you had to bet P312 vs U106 you'd probably bet U106 based on the STRs. I don't know if this strike three. Probably not, but the odds of Scandinavia being the origin for U106 aren't all that good from what we know.

Okay, looks like we have ball two. Jost's analysis of the Busby data set shows Norway with the highest variance.

....S21(U106) has about the same generation age as S116 but checking out the population Variance (throw out BAS), has Norway in the lead as the most variance....

Important for all to note that Norway has the highest U106 variance in the Busby study and that the data is new to that study and was not part of the Myres 2011 dataset.

Mark J or Richard R, can you comment on why the Busby data and Myres data have different results?

Are different markers used, etc.? How large are the samples?

For Norway, do you mean modern Norway? If so, that would be a twist as it has always looked like L21 was more common in Norway while U106 did better on the southern tip of Sweden... but if diversity is greatest there, it just is.

Did the Old Norway Project ever give us haplotypes?

We've talked about this on the STR Wars/diversity thread ad nauseum so I don't want to go too deep on general STR variance here, but I've never had consistent observations of relative haplogroup STR variance for R1b at low numbers of STRs. It has always seemed to start to even out at 25 markers and above. An actuarian on the M222 forum ran some simulations and said you really should have 50 markers at a minimum. Still, diversity is more important than frequency for determining an ancient trail. The only question, is what data sets/measurements are most reliable and when is the best data we have more helpful than distracting. I am in the camp that thinks more data is always good, but all evidence should be ranked with precision and accuracy characteristics.

Of course, if U106 actually does have an ancient trail along the Atlantic that is significant for two reasons:1) a tie into the Bell Beaker expansion and a Western European origination for the L11* P312/U106 MRCA origination2) some happy U106 guys from Ireland

Two things as I understand. Busby selected a set of STRs that had a better linearity (D) that extended the coalescence time (T)and variance for deeper ancestry information. Higher the D has a direct affect on T, which is affected by the STRs properties. The chosen mutation rate affects the overall variance calculations. Busby used μ taken from Ballantyne et al 2010 where as Myres' used evolutionary mutation rates. They stated that "We used the observed m calculated recently [33- Ballantyne, K. N. et al. 2010] to rank the 15 STRs on a scale of speed, and separately calculated ASD based on the seven fastest and seven slowest rates (electronic supplementary material, table S4)."

All major differences but as Busby states the final word in all of this:

"Age estimates based on sets of Y-STRs carefullyselected to possess the attributes necessary for uncoveringdeep ancestry (for example, from the almost 200 recentlycharacterized here [33]), and from whole Y chromosomesequence comparisons, will provide robust dates for thishaplogroup in the future. For now, we can offer no dateas to the age of R-M269 or R-S127, but believe thatour STR analyses suggest the recent age estimates ofR-M269 [20] and R-S116 [21] are likely to be youngerthan the true values, and the homogeneity of STR varianceand distribution of sub-types across the continentare inconsistent with the hypothesis of the Neolithicdiffusion of the R-M269 Y chromosome lineage."

(Think I got all of this right)

I just wanted to see what MarkH's newest muation rates (Thank you Marko) would do to the results when I applied the sum of the 14 markers of the 15 (x389i) using my modification of MikeW's Age Estimator version 7.1 with KenN's newest Gen111T engine changing to more precise internal Excel functions, which I feel increases the accuracies.